Sanjay Sarthi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of

Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation

Under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of

Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation

Under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of

Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation

Under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of

Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation

friends Manorama, Rama, Preeti and Chandani towards the pond of Hirapur for collecting wood. At that time, this witness and Chandani had climbed",

over a tree, Preeti was collecting wood. Manorama and Rama, having seen a snake, started shouting. On this, this witness, after getting down from",

the tree, started to run away. At that time, the Appellant came there from behind, gagged her mouth and took her to a dilapidated house situated",

nearby and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her inside the said house. When she tried to shout, he forcefully gagged her mouth. Thereafter,",

he threatened her that if she tells about the incident to anyone, he will commit rape with her elder sister also. 2 days thereafter, the prosecutrix told",

about the incident to her mother and thereafter she lodged the FIR.,

Noorjahan (PW2), mother of the prosecutrix, has deposed that when she was working in a mill, her son came to her and told that her daughter (the",

prosecutrix) was going to police station. Then she went to the police station where on being asked from the prosecutrix she told her that the Appellant,

had committed rape with her and he had also threatened her that if she tells about the incident to anyone, he will commit rape with her elder sister",

also.,

Ku. Najma (PW7), elder sister of the prosecutrix, has also stated that the prosecutrix had told her that when she had gone to the forest to collect",

wood, the Appellant had forcefully taken her to a dilapidated house in the forest and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her there. This witness",

has also stated that on the same day, they had gone to the police station and lodged the FIR.",

Manorama (PW8) and Monika (PW11) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Dr. Rajni Patel (PW12) examined the prosecutrix on,

21.1.2013. She has deposed that on examination of the prosecutrix, she found that there was no visible injury present over private part or over any",

other part of the body of the prosecutrix. One finger was easily inserting into the vagina of the prosecutrix and her hymen was old ruptured. She found,

the prosecutrix to be able to perform sexual intercourse, but she has opined that she could not give any definite opinion regarding recent sexual",

intercourse with the prosecutrix.,

Inspector C.S. Sharma (PW14) is the witness who investigated the offence in question.,

On a minute examination of the evidence available on record, it is clear that though Manorama (PW8) and Monika (PW11) have not supported the",

case of the prosecution, in her Court statement the prosecutrix (PW1) has categorically stated that on the date of incident she was subjected to",

forcible sexual intercourse by the Appellant in a dilapidated house. She was also threatened by him. This witness has remained firm during her cross-,

examination. After the incident, she had also narrated the incident to her mother Noorjahan (PW2) and her elder sister Najma (PW7). There is",

nothing on record on the basis of which it could be said that the prosecutrix, her mother and sister and the Appellant were at inimical terms. Therefore,",

there is no basis to believe that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the Appellant. Though there are some contradictions in the statements of the,

above witnesses, they are not material. With regard to lodging of the FIR after 12 days of the incident, I find that the delay has been sufficiently and",

properly explained by the prosecutrix. From the evidence on record, it has already been established that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was",

below 18 years of age. Therefore, considering the entire evidence available on record, I find that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant",

under Sections 363, 366A, 376(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant is affirmed.",

As regards sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, for the offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, I",

reduce the Appellant's rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to 7 years, but affirm the fine sentence of Rs.20,000/-. For the other offences under",

Sections 363, 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, I affirm the jail and fine sentences imposed upon him by the Trial Court. All the sentences are",

directed to run concurrently. The order of the Trial Court regarding payment of the amount of fine to the prosecutrix is affirmed.,

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.",

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,